WASHINGTON, November 3, 2016 –Bret Baier of Fox News has reported that an indictment is “likely” in the Hillary Clinton email case as the Chairman of Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee listed two federal statutes that Clinton may have violated—18 U.S. Code 793 (f) and 18 U.S. Code 2071.
These codes deal with “the willful destruction or removal from proper custody of information relating to national defense.” It is part of the “high crimes and misdemeanors” that would lead to indictment or impeachment should Mrs. Clinton become president.
What Clinton and the Democratic party may be fearing is The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), a United States Federal Law passed in 1970 that was designed to provide a tool for law enforcement agencies to fight organized crime.
What is racketeering? Activities that include bribery, counterfeiting, money laundering, embezzlement, illegal gambling, kidnapping, murder, drug trafficking, slavery among other questionable business practices.
Media reports are that James Comey and The FBI will not bow to the Democratic demand to sweep Clinton’s actions under the rug. Report are that Comey will present a recommendation to Loretta Lynch, Attorney General of the Department of Justice, arguing that the Clinton Foundation is an ongoing criminal enterprise engaged in money laundering and soliciting bribes in exchange for political, policy and legislative favors to individuals, corporations and even governments both foreign and domestic, in particular .
“The New York Times examined Bill Clinton’s relationship with a Canadian mining financier, Frank Giustra, who has donated millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation and sits on its board. Clinton, the story suggests, helped Giustra’s company secure a lucrative uranium-mining deal in Kazakhstan and in return received “a flow of cash” to the Clinton Foundation, including previously undisclosed donations from the company’s chairman totaling $2.35 million.” (Clinton Foundation Failed to Disclose 1,100 Foreign Donations – Bloomberg)
What seems to be coming to light is that the Clinton Foundation used a Canadian shell company to shield donor identities. According to the New York Times:
Aides to former President Bill Clinton helped start a Canadian charity that effectively shielded the identities of donors who gave more than $33 million that went to his foundation, despite a pledge of transparency when Hillary Rodham Clinton became secretary of state.
The nonprofit, the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (Canada), operates in parallel to a Clinton Foundation project called the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership, which is expressly covered by an agreement Mrs. Clinton signed to make all donors public while she led the State Department. However, the foundation maintains that the Canadian partnership is not bound by that agreement and that under Canadian law contributors’ names cannot be made public. (Canadian Partnership Shielded Identities of Donors to Clinton Foundation)
When the official investigation into Hillary’s email server began, she instructed her IT professional to delete over 30,000 emails and cloud backups of her emails older than 30 days at both Platte River Networks and Datto, Inc. Then Cheryl Mills, after a leaked email exchange with John Podesta that said “we are going to have to dump all those emails” oversaw the permanent destruction of those emails by using “Bleach Bit” a process that wipes a server clean.
While Comey original said that he did not recommend continuing any prosecution toward Clinton, he also told the Senate that he would reopen the investigation if more information – we can assume he meant more damning information – of crimes came to light.
The FBI has subsequently recovered the majority, if not all, of Hillary’s deleted emails and are putting together a strong case against her for attempting to cover up her illegal and illicit activities. In a twist of fate, much has come to light as a result not of hackers, but of our own former Senator Anthony Weiner whose lap top was taken by the FBI in their probe of his possible child pornography and endangerment charges.
The 11 federal laws that Hillary Clinton and her associates at both the State Department and The Clinton Foundation are accused of violating:
- U.S. Code § 798 – Disclosure of classified information
- U.S. Code § 1031 — Major fraud against the United States
- U.S. Code § 371 – Conspiracy to commit a federal offense
- U.S. Code § 1924 – Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material
- U.S. Code § 2071(b) — Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally
- U.S. Code § 1346 — Definition of “scheme or artifice to defraud”
- U.S. Code § 641 – Public money, property or records
- U.S. Code § 1343 – Fraud by wire, radio or television
- U.S. Code § 1505 – Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees
- U.S. Code § 1519 — Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in federal investigations
- 18 U.S. Code § 793 — Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
- Her usage of an illicit private email server while at the State Department;
- The sending and receiving of classified information on unsecured channels;
- Obstruction of justice, lying under oath, or destruction of government property;
- Misleading or concealing information from federal agents conducting an official investigation;
- Abusing a government office for private gain, such as vis-à-vis The Clinton Foundation;
- Engaging in quid pro quo arrangements that risk the national security of the United States;
- Engaging in a “cover-up.”
None of the things she did is questioned: She did it, she owns her crimes. She just wants us to say its OK for no other reason than she is who she is. And despite allegations that Attorney General Loretta Lynch may have been pressured by Presidents Obama and Clinton to stop Comey and the FBI from going forward with the investigation, it seems others have let the proverbial criminal cat out of the liberal bag of obfuscation.
At the end of the criminal investigation is that Hillary Clinton, who seeks to take office as President of the United States, has given a number of statements to the public about her private email server that have turned out to be demonstrably false. She has, it is being alleged, used the Clinton Foundation which was established in 2001 for the stated purpose of “alleviating poverty, improve global health, strengthen economies, and protect the environment.” What is being looked at very closely is that, according to their own reporting, Clinton Foundation spent very little money on “direct aid.”
IRS documents showed that the Foundation raised over $500 million from 2009-2012, and yet the Clinton Foundation only spent $75 million on “programmatic grants.”
“The other $425 million was allocated as follows: more than $25 million went for travel expenses; almost $110 million for employee salaries and benefits; and $290 million for ‘other expenses,'” reports Discover The Networks.
Charity Navigator, a nonprofit charity watchdog, has refused to rate the Clinton Foundation as a charity because its “atypical business model . . . doesn’t meet our criteria” putting the Foundation on their “watch list” warning potential donors that it may not result in charitable acts. Among the charities on their list are Rev. Al Sharpton’s troubled National Action Network, which is cited for failing to pay payroll taxes for several years.
“It seems like the Clinton Foundation operates as a slush fund for the Clintons,” said Bill Allison, a senior fellow at the Sunlight Foundation, a government watchdog group.
However, those negative ratings have never bothered the Clintons as the donations they sought were not from rank and file Americans but powerful countries like the $1-5 million from Qatar, $5-10 million from Kuwait and the $10-$25 million from Saudi Arabia who would benefit from supporting the Clintons.
International Business Times highlights one instance of foreign countries benefitting following foundation support is the “$165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation,” including “Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Qatar.”
“In the years before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia contributed at least $10 million to the Clinton Foundation, the philanthropic enterprise she has overseen with her husband, former president Bill Clinton. Just two months before the deal was finalized, Boeing — the defense contractor that manufactures one of the fighter jets the Saudis were especially keen to acquire, the F-15 — contributed $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation, according to a company press release.
The Saudi deal was one of dozens of arms sales approved by Hillary Clinton’s State Department that placed weapons in the hands of governments that had also donated money to the Clinton family philanthropic empire, an International Business Times investigation has found. (IBT.COM)”
Of all of the “high crimes and misdemeanors” that have been alleged to have been conducted by the Clinton family, their undoing may not be because of the Russians, WikiLeaks or Donald Trump. The undoing may by their greed, their unending quest for more, to live not well, but better. The desire for first class travel, to live better, have more, wield greater influence than the billionaire next door.
From the National Review (The Clintons — At the End of All Things):
“The Hillary/Bill fortune — generated by pay-for-play influence peddling on the proposition that Bill would return to the White House under Hillary’s aegis and reward friends while punishing enemies — hit a reported $150 million some time ago, a fortune built not on farming, mining, insurance, finance, high-tech, or manufacturing, but on skimming off money. The Clintons are simply grifters whose insider access to government gave them the power to make rich people richer.”
“Translated: A President Hillary Clinton would probably have no regret that dozens of heads of state, the majority of them dictatorial and not especially friendly to the U.S., would feel that they had done business with Hillary and Bill — and she, as a recipient of their largess, would owe them commensurate attention.”
“By temperament and background, the Clintons are leftists and will follow a leftist vision, sort of, but one predicated on doing so within the constraints of obtaining and keeping power.”
The question for American voters over the next few days is whether the “Clinton temperament” is a temperament appropriate for a president?